Tuesday, August 11, 2015

America Naively Swoons While Communist Cuba Cracks Down!

Benweingarten.com ^ | 2015-08-11 | Benjamin Weingarten 

What is it about dictatorships that make Americans swoon?
Juxtaposing two recent articles published within 24 hours of each other on Cuba is instructive.
First, a Wall Street Journal article titled "Amid Thaw, First Authorized U.S. Yacht Sails to Cuba on Hopes of Travel Surge" reads:
The 78-foot Still Water docked in the marina late Wednesday after a four-hour jaunt. Aboard the sleek yacht were three crew and 12 passengers eager to see Cuba before the sharp economic and social change that many Americans expect to sweep the country as a long-frozen U.S.-Cuba relationship thaws. Some also hoped to sniff out business opportunities that such a transformation might spawn.“Being born in the 50s and being indoctrinated the way we were, it’s interesting to be able to see this,” said 57-year-old passenger Jack McClurg, who manages his personal investments from Colorado and sails the Caribbean in his own 115-foot Italian-made yacht. “I’m just wanting to see this change happening.”
... Though Presidents Barack Obama and Raúl Castro agreed in December to restore diplomatic relations between their countries, the trade embargo remains largely in effect. But officials and entrepreneurs in both countries are chipping at its edges, hoping to marry U.S. investors with Cuba’s hope to revive its economy.
“The genie of free enterprise is out of the bottle and it is a powerful genie,” Jose Viera, a retired senior Cuban diplomat, assured the yacht’s group in a private briefing. [Emphasis mine]
Contrast this sunny view with what is actually happening on the island to non-apparitchiks:

(Excerpt) Read more at benweingarten.com ...

Stop Calling Leftists ‘Liberals’: There is nothing “liberal” about the modern American left!

Pajamas Media ^ | 08/11/2015 | Rand Simberg 

Bill O’Reilly was figuratively scratching his head [1] last Monday night on his “Talking Points Memo,” almost to the point that it was bleeding:
No matter who wins the Democratic presidential nomination, they will toe the liberal line. That’s because the Democratic liberal party has been taken over by the far left. Few moderate Democrats have any currency in the party.
…my question tonight is, what happened to liberalism? The liberal philosophy is based upon fairness for the underdog — helping those who are down and out. Protecting the defenseless. Yet, unborn babies don’t count. How does that work when the liberal line urges social justice?
…The decline of liberalism began with a real war, Vietnam. The left voiced major objections and they were right. The war was fought in a dishonest way and hundreds of thousands of American working men and women primarily were killed or wounded.
…Today we have the most liberal president in America’s history, Barack Obama, elected twice. But his economic policies have not improved the lives of the poor or African-Americans. Every statistic tells the same story; there are fewer good jobs, salaries are stagnant on Obama’s watch. That’s because the feds cannot run a free marketplace.
Emphasis mine. It goes on and on in that vein.
The answer is right in front of his face, it’s in his very words. In fact, note the incongruity between his first sentence and his second. If the “‘liberal’ party has been taken over by the far left,” why would it toe the “liberal” line?
Bill, you keep using that word “liberalism.” I don’t think it means what you think it means.
Here’s the answer, Bill. Nothing happened to liberalism. Liberalism is alive and well, in places like the libertarian movement, where it’s always been. What happened is not that liberalism changed, but that “progressive” (another false label) leftists stole the label from the true liberals decades ago.
And no, there is nothing “liberal” about “social justice,” which is an endlessly malleable phrase that simply means “stuff leftists like this week.” Nor, laudable as it may be, is liberalism “based upon fairness for the underdog.” If there is such a thing in your incoherent world view, that is O’Reillyism. And the reason that we have had the worst economic recovery since the Depression is for the same reason that it was so bad during the Depression; Obama is not a “liberal”at all, let alone the “most liberal,” and his economic policies are (and Franklin Roosevelt’s were) precisely the opposite of that label.
Classically, liberalism stands for economic freedom, freedom of expression, civil rights of individuals, and limited government under the rule of law. In fact, in much of the world outside of the U.S., in Europe and Australia and even Canada, it still means that, and is considered “right wing.” But there is nothing “liberal” about the modern American left, or the Democrats’ leadership or base, and there hasn’t been for decades.
As Orwell warned decades ago, the totalitarian left refashions the language to suit its chameleonic political needs, and misappropriating the word “liberal” is simply part and parcel of that. In fact, Lewis Carroll anticipated Orwell’s warning by several decades, in Through the Looking Glass:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all.”
And they do consider themselves our masters, both intellectually and morally. When someone merely says something with which they disagree, they call it “violence,” requiring “safe zones.” But when they commit violent protests (as with Occupy Wall Street), they declare it “speech.” When someone objects to treating people differently based on the color of their skin, or says that not just black lives, but all lives matter, they call it “racism.” When someone objects to dismembering babies in (and occasionally out) of the womb like a human chop shop, they call them a “violent extremist.” [2] When someone declines to accept [3] a commission to create art for a ceremony that they find morally problematic, they are oh so tolerantly declared “intolerant” and “hateful.”
And when, as a result of this kind of hateful intolerant behavior, their brand becomes increasingly tarnished, they falsely declare themselves to be to be “liberal,” knowing that traditionally, that has been an admirable and truly progressive world view.
Yes, as Bill notes, the party was taken over by the hard left decades ago, and abandoned even any pretense of liberal values, even while continuing to call themselves fraudulently by that phrase, and slandering true liberals everywhere. And the reason that they get away with it is because people like Bill O’Reilly allow them to, using their purloined word to falsely describe them himself.
Long before Orwell or Carroll, the Chinese philosopher Confucius said that, when words had lost their meaning, it was time for a rectification of names [4], because “…if names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success.”
At least since 2006, when the Democrats took over Congress, it’s fair to say that affairs have not been particularly carried on to success, at least for the American people. It is past time to rectify the names, to take back the language from these lexigraphical thieves. And I modestly propose that we start with the word “liberal.”

COMPROMISED: John Kerry has much to hide on his ties to Iran.

FrontPage Mag ^ | 08/11/2015 | Kenneth R. Timmerman 

Secretary of State John Kerry is becoming increasingly frantic as he takes his case for the deeply flawed Iran nuclear deal around the country.
His latest argument, that congressional disapproval of the deal will be the “ultimate screwing” of Iran’s clerical Supremo - and that we should care – verges on hysteria.
Whether it’s hysterically funny or a psychotic condition would be a tough call, if only the stakes weren’t so high for our security and the security of our friends and allies, starting with the Iranian people.
John Kerry has much to hide on his ties to Iran. As I revealed more than ten years ago, Mr. Kerry has long been sympathetic to the Islamist regime in Tehran.
In June 2002 – just nine months after the 9/11 attacks on America – Mr. Kerry headlined a fund-raising gala for the American-Iranian Council, a pro-regime lobbying group seeking to roll back U.S. sanctions and promote U.S. investment in Iran.
The next day, AIC members returned the favor and hosted a fund-raiser for Senator Kerry’s re-election campaign at the Ritz Carlton in San Francisco that netted more than $26,000. Many of those same fund-raisers became bundlers for Mr. Kerry’s failed 2004 presidential bid.
Among those opening their wallets was a stunning 34-year-old Iranian woman named Susan Akbarpour, aka Zahra A. Mashadi. “I am an actor in U.S. politics,” Ms. Akbarpour boasted to a reporter. “I am a fund-raiser for all candidates who listen to us and our concerns.”
The only problem was, her political contributions were illegal because she did not have a green card. The Kerry campaign never returned those contributions and the Federal Election Commission never investigated.
Mr. Kerry has been accused of behaving as “Iran’s lawyer” in the nuclear negotiations, finding excuses for Iran’s bad behavior and justifications for a seemingly endless stream of U.S. capitulations to Iran.
But that behavior is not new. In fact, during a debate with President George W. Bush during the 2004 campaign, Mr. Kerry pledged that had he been president since 2001, he would have “offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel” to Iran, to “test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes.”
Why would the United States appoint as lead negotiator a politician whose long-held views favoring our adversary in those negotiations were well-known?
Much has been made recently of Secretary Kerry’s family ties to Iran, a fact that was never raised during his confirmation hearings as Secretary of State.

Vanessa Kerry tartly dismissed rumors that have circulated in the Iranian-American community in Los Angeles since her 2009 wedding that the son of Iran’s Foreign Minister, Mehdi Zarif, was best-man for her husband, Behrouz Vala Nahed, an American-born neuro-surgeon. “Happy 2 verify. No wedding party when we married. No Zarif’s son. Sorry 2 disappoint,” she tweeted recently.
An Iranian website close to the father, Mohammad Javad Zarif, initially reported that Brian Nahed and Mahdi Zarif had “only” been college roommates, but later changed the on-line version of the article without noting the correction.
Mahdi Zarif attended the City University of New York and lived in the United States for more than a decade while his father was the Islamic Republic’s ambassador to the United Nations (and repeatedly met with U.S. Senators in Washington, DC, including now vice-president Joe Biden). Dr. Nahed took his pre-med undergraduate degree several years earlier at UCLA.
But the presence or not of Zarif the son at Kerry the daughter’s wedding is a side show and detracts from an examination of Mr. Kerry’s fundamental conflict of interest in serving as chief U.S. negotiator with Iran.
The facts are indisputable:
  • Mr. Kerry took illegal campaign cash from an Iranian national who, while claiming to be a political refugee, assaulted anti-regime protesters in Los Angeles, promoted U.S. computer and software investment in Iran in violation of U.S. sanctions, and boasted of influencing U.S. politicians with a pro-Tehran agenda. Taking that illicit cash tainted Mr. Kerry and identified him a “soft target” to agents of the Iranian regime.
  • Mr. Kerry carried through his side of the bargain, embracing the pro-Tehran agenda during his 2004 presidential campaign, while his Iranian backers kicked in substantial fresh cash to his campaign.
  • Mr. Kerry met Zarif at a private reception hosted by George Soros in New York in 2005, shortly after Soros’s Open Society Institute hosted Zarif at a policy luncheon for New York media elites.
  • Mr. Kerry sought to travel to Tehran to jumpstart diplomatic negotiations in December 2009, but was rebuffed by Tehran.
As I wrote earlier this year, a former aide to Iranian president Rouhani, who defected while covering the nuclear talks, revealed that Mr. Kerry and the U.S. delegation were seen by the Iranian negotiating team as secret allies who helped arm-twist reluctant partners such as France into making major concessions.
I know Iranian-Americans who volunteered for U.S. military service who were forced to leave the military when family members traveled to Iran. Why? Because counter-intelligence professionals who understood the Iranian government track record of exploiting family relationships for intelligence or political purposes indicated they could be compromised.
After all, the Soviets used family relationships all through the Cold War to compromise unwilling individuals to collaborate with their cause.
The game is as old as the intelligence business itself: find some string to manipulate or blackmail your adversary, then pull as hard as you can.
When it comes to Iran, John Kerry is about as compromised as they get.

Black Lives Matter Way Too Much

Misadventures in Diversity ^ | 8/10/15 | Donald Joy 

A black criminal resists or attacks a white cop or a mostly non-black watchman, and dies as a result, and the whole country spins wildly into paroxysms of hysteria.
Orgies of non-stop rioting and looting commence. Police departments and municipal governments enact emergency measures, costing taxpayers millions upon millions of dollars. Lawyers, politicians, and officials hustle to the microphones. Reporters, analysts, and pundits go into hyper-drive. Businesses burn to the ground. Entire city blocks explode in flames and mayhem and murder. The federal government doles out mountains of cash for leftist community agitators to go in and egg on the rioters, even while signing them up to vote.
Lather, douse in more gasoline, repeat.
Obese, loudmouthed black female troublemakers disrupt and completely hijack events where gray-haired, pale-faced Democrat men — candidates for president, no less — are shouted down and shoved aside, unable to give their scheduled speeches. Last month it was former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley, sidelined and silenced by a BLM ringleader and her mob at the Netroots convention, and this past week it was Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, berated and browbeaten into submission by screaming black-power sheboons who stormed the stage and got in his face in Seattle.
Both men silently stood there, pushed off to the edge of their respective stages, as caterwauling, big-boned beasts with massive quaking flanks of chocolate ghetto blubber waved their arms and fists around wildly, bellowing #BlackLivesMatter geurilla battle chants and propaganda into the illicitly-seized microphones. Both men just sheepishly acquiesced in the general-threat aura of African terrorism. Both men were supposed to have been the centers of attention, to set the tone and focus at their respective events in delivering their campaign messages. Instead, the rampaging squads of militant black assholes did their thing, taking over the scenes entirely.
Even powerful Democrats are terrified by the aggressive black race-hustlers. Almost everyone is afraid to speak up and tell the truth.
It isn’t just that all lives matter. It’s that black lives matter far more than they should.
Yes, even the mostly nameless and faceless black casualties from the gangland beefs of our inner-cities and ‘hoods cost all of us too much: If not for all that disastrous black dysfunction and crime, our cities, counties, and states could make do and prosper with only a fraction of the budgets & tax revenue spent on police, social services, handouts, projects, prisons, and programs.
Facing direly escalating costs to their careers, families, personal safety, legal liability and even their freedom, police officers are increasingly reluctant to dare try to enforce the law against black violators, or even defend themselves when feral blacks launch deadly criminal attacks.
Contrary to the lies of the Left, for decades leading up to the Trayvon Martin incident and since, blacks have been extremely more likely to commit violent crimes, and disproportionately less likely to be killed by police than whites, in relation to the comparative rates of violent crime in which members of the respective demographics are involved.
Now, as I write this on the one-year anniversary of Officer Darren Wilson having justly defended himself against the murderous, rampaging giant black drug fiend & robber Michael Brown, the African terrorist mobs in ‘Fergadishu,’ Missouri have suddenly begun their race riots and looting again, in Brown’s dishonorable memory. As of last night, police are being shot at and attacked, and it’s total chaos and looting in those streets once more. An official state of emergency has just been declared in Ferguson.
Seriously — it’s time to start shooting looters as a matter of official policy, and cutting our losses in other ways. The lives of such criminals as Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Vonderrit Myers, and Freddie Gray really should not matter to our society anywhere near as much as we allow them to. And the fact that such a huge number of blacks, whites, and of the overall population are pushing the #BlackLivesMatter b.s. — hijacking so much of our daily lives, attention, productivity, and property while they’re at it — shows that too many people have bought into the over-inflated sense of blacks as some sort of sacred beings among us. It’s past time to burst the bubble, or at least let some air out of it.

AF Special Operations Command receives first AC-130J

Air Force News Service ^ | July 31, 2015 | SSgt Marleah Robertson 

HURLBURT FIELD, Fla. (AFNS) -- The first AC-130J Ghostrider landed here July 29, making it Air Force Special Operations Command’s first AC-130J.
After completing the initial developmental test and evaluation by the 413th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, the aircraft will be flown by the 1st Special Operations Group Detachment 2 and maintained by the 1st Special Operations Aircraft Maintenance Squadron during its initial operational tests and evaluations at Hurlburt Field.
“Putting it through these tests will allow us to wring out the AC-130J in a simulated combat environment, instead of the more rigid flight profiles in formal developmental testing,” said Lt. Col. Brett DeAngelis, the 1st SOG Det. 2 commander. “Now that we know the equipment works when we turn it on, it’s our task to determine the best way to employ our newest asset.”
For most, the new gunship is the future.
“The AC-130J brings new technology to the table for AFSOC with more efficient engines, improved fuel efficiency and the ability to fly higher, further and quieter,” said Master Sgt. Michael Ezell, the 1st SOAMXS production superintendent. “Additionally, the modified weapons system it possesses is a precision strike package that was collected from the older models, such as the laser-guided bombs and AGM-176 Griffin bombs, and combined to give us all the capabilities of the AC-130W Stinger II and AC-130U Spooky all in one package.”
The AC-130J is a modified MC-130J Commando II, containing advanced features that will enable it to provide ground forces with an expeditionary, direct-fire platform that is persistent, suited for urban operations and capable of delivering precision munitions against ground targets.
“This is an exciting transition as we move the AC-130J from the test community to the operational community,” DeAngelis said. “While we still have initial operational testing in front of us to accomplish, it will now be done by aircrews selected for their combat expertise, instead of their testing background.”
A cadre of 60 aircrew and maintainers were selected by the Air Force Personnel Center to stand up the program, and there will be an additional 30 contractors to help work on the new gunship.
“We will be training on the airplane, getting all the qualifications and hands-on experience we need to be able to perform operational testing in order to give an exact picture of how this plane will operate in a real-world environment,” Ezell said. “Our focus right now is to learn how to maintain the aircraft and the operators will learn how to fly it and get ready for (initial operational test and evaluation), which should start later this year.”
Airmen were hand selected to work on the new AC-130J; they encompass a solid background and level of expertise on C-130Js. The maintenance team cadre came from Little Rock AFB, Arkansas, Dyess AFB, Texas, Kirtland AFB, New Mexico, Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona, and Cannon AFB, New Mexico.
“As more AC-130Js are produced and delivered, the older models will slowly be retired,” DeAngelis said. “Until then, we’ll hold on to them while the AC-130J completes operational tests and the fleet becomes abundant in numbers.”
Operational testing is expected to be complete in spring 2016.
“Det. 2’s mission is simple; ‘Get it right,’” DeAngelis said. “And we have the right group of people to do just that.”

An America with Donald Trump as President: A Summary of His Openly Stated Policies

Investopedia ^ | 08/11/2015 

It's never easy to predict how any presidential term will play out; very few could have anticipated the 9/11 attacks or the Iraq War after George W. Bush won in 2000 or the lingering effects of the Great Recession after Barack Obama won in 2008. Yet the recent and meteoric rise of Donald Trump to the top of the GOP polls begs an interesting question: what if the billionaire real estate mogul actually wins the White House in 2016?
As of July 2015, it is hard to nail down precisely what Trump's economic, social and foreign policies are. Trump is big on broad ideas and generic solutions, but his speeches and writings aren't filled with specific proposals. There are some older proposals from his Reform Primary challenge for the presidency in 2000. Combined with his recent speeches and TV appearances, there is enough to forge a vague picture of a future led by President Trump.
Trump shares some obvious platforms with all of the Republican candidates for 2016: End Obamacare, reform the welfare state, reduce taxes and (with the exception of Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky) a more hawkish stance on foreign policy.

An End to Free Trade

Perhaps no single proposal by Donald Trump is as striking and antiquated as his strategy to keep American jobs from being "taken away" by foreign countries, such as Mexico and China.
Trump doesn't consider international trade to be a win-win proposition as do most modern economists. Instead, Trump believes that trade wars have clear winners and losers, and that currencies and trade restrictions must be used to ensure victory.
At various times throughout his campaign, Trump has pledged to put in place a 20% tariff on all imported goods. He told an audience that he would have told the CEO of Ford Motor Co. that he would have the government impose a 35% tariff on all Ford products if a Ford motor plant was shut down in Detroit and moved to Mexico. He has said that he would even impose a Chinese-specific tariff to offset the effects of Chinese currency manipulation.
Trump's philosophy on trade isn't exactly new, although it hasn't really existed as public policy in the U.S. since theSmoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which imposed high tariffs on more than 20,000 foreign products in an effort to boost the profits of American companies and keep American jobs. Unfortunately, the tariff was widely reciprocated and international trade slowed considerably, costing jobs around the world just as the Great Depression was starting.

Five-Point Tax Plan

One carryover from Trump's 2000 presidential platform is his five-point tax plan. The plan in 2015 is slightly modified to account for inflation and larger government debt, but otherwise, it is very similar.
1) Trump wants a repeal of the U.S. death tax, or what the IRS refers to as the estate tax. Trump cites a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study that suggests that some 1.5 million new jobs aren't created because of the tax on large wealth transfers to non-spouse heirs. As of 2015, the estate tax applies to estates larger than $5.43 million.
2) President Trump would also seek to reduce taxes on capital gains and dividends; "capitalism requires capital," as Trump noted in a speech.

3) He wants corporate taxes set at zero to encourage American companies to stay and hire domestically, creating jobs at home.
4) Along with his 20% tariff on imported goods, Trump also wants to impose an additional 20% tax on companies that hire foreign workers.
5) The fifth part of the five-point plan is a simplified tax code with the following brackets:
  • 1% tax on the first $30,000 in income,
  • 5% tax on all income between $30,000 and $100,000,
  • 10% tax on all income between $100,000 and;
  • $1 million, and a 15% rate on all income above $1 million.

Foreign Policy

Trump projects a hardline stance on illegal immigration, turmoil in the Middle East, and negotiations with China, Russia and Iran.
President Trump would push to build a physical wall on the border with Mexico. He proposed sending Exxon Mobil to Iraq to "take back the oil" to starve ISIS. However, he refuses to say whether he'd commit more American troops overseas.

“Black Lives Matter” isn’t helping!

Coach is Right ^ | 8/11/15 | John C. Velisek USN (Ret.) 

“Furthering” the Black Lives Matter meme is a constant barrage of sit-in participants, watching people eat in upscale neighborhoods, attacking innocent folks who do not have the ability to defend themselves from a rampaging mob, taking over political meetings and even going so far as knocking out 80 year old retired veterans. Of course this not covered by the mainstream media and is barely investigated by law enforcement. Once again, members of law enforcement are being kept at bay by accusations of racism. There are few who will take a stand given the lack of support on the part of superiors.
Just last night, on the anniversary of the death of Michael Brown, there were shots fired at police. When officers returned fire, they were blamed for the death of a black man-once a good friend of Michael Brown-who was doing the shooting. Police who shot the man were working undercover, not in uniform and without body cameras. As the “activists” causing problems in Ferguson are never without a camera, perhaps police should wear them at all times, if only for the purpose of self-defense.
There are people like Shaka Shakur, showing up in camo and wearing the Black Power flag that they want to replace the Stars and Stripes. They are on a rant about how those killed in a Charleston church were actually murdered by a government plant and that Dylan Roof is part of a bigger conspiracy to kill black people. Shakur is a follower of New Black Panther Party leader Malik Zulu Shabazz who has called for the continuance of the 1882 slave revolt led by Denmark Vesey, one of the champions of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Vesey’s plan was to kill as many white people as possible. And because Shakur believes that Dylan Roof...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...

Feds Try To Seize Veteran’s Guns; See What Happens Next

http://www.tpnn.com ^ | August 9, 2015 | Colleen Conley 

Liberals continue to scoff at Second Amendment supporters’ supposed “paranoia” that the government wants to take away our guns.
Of course, they are either in denial of the Progressive left’s radical agenda or they are lying for political purposes. A recent incident, however, demonstrates that the fears of gun rights supporters are well founded.
We recently reported on the collusion of the the VA and the feds to take guns away from the citizens who are most capable of using them. The situation involving United States Navy veteran John Arnold in Idaho proves that true beyond a doubt.
Mr. Arnold was notified by letter on July 30th that an inspector from an Idaho office of Veteran’s Affairs would be coming to his home in Priest River on August 6th to confiscate his firearms.
Mr. Arnold is a spry 70-years-old with full cognition, but he had a stroke back in September which caused him to seek medical attention from the VA. During his “assessment” after treatment, it was apparently determined that he was “mentally defective.” There was a box checked on his paperwork which indicated that he was unable to handle his own finances after his stroke. That “box” being checked gave the government “cause” to negate Mr. Arnold’s Second Amendment rights, even though he attests that he has always handled his own finances even after the stroke from which he recovered quickly.
When word got out that Mr. Arnold was going to have his guns confiscated, his community rose up and gathered around his home to defend his rights and prevent the inspector from seizing his firearms.
Arnold said he was amazed at the support he received. Two Idaho state representatives, Heather Scott and Matt Shea were also in attendance.
“It’s absolutely amazing and it gives you a new found hope that there are still people out there,” said supporter Maria Bosworth.
A field officer with Bonner County Veteran Services made an appearance at the gathering at Arnold’s home Thursday and announced to the crowd that the VA inspector would not be coming to Arnold’s house that day. The Veteran Service officer also said Arnold may appeal the paperwork stating he was incompetent to handle his funds.
Mr. Arnold’s experience is not an isolated incident. His predicament caught the attention of some of the media only because of the support he received from the citizens in his community. How many other veterans are being unjustly stripped of their God-given right to bear arms and have no one to stand up for them in protest?
Just three years ago, over 90% of people who were reported to the gun ban list were reported by the Veteran’s Administration, and the situation appears to be worsening. If a tyrannical government wished to disarm their citizens, who better to start with than those who would be most highly trained and effective at wielding a gun?

You’re a fool if you think Hillary’s come clean about her emails!

Flopping Aces ^ | 08-11-15 | DrJohn 

 It all depends on your meaning of the word "certifies." Hillary Clinton was supposed to have handed over all her government-related emails. At one time she claimed that she had already done so until her emails to and from Sid Blumenthal were outed. Now she has "certified under penalty of perjury" that she has handed them all over:
(CNN) — Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has told a federal judge that she has turned over all of her work-related emails to the State Department after she was ordered to certify that she had done so, a state department spokesman confirmed to CNN on Sunday.This follows U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan ordering Clinton as well as two former top department aides to state under penalty of perjury they have produced all government records in their possession.
But in classic Clinton tradition:
While the State Department initially said Friday Clinton had not issued her certification, department spokesman Alec Gerlach said when her attorneys sent the document it initially went to officials on leave.
Clinton's aides Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin ignored the order:
However, two aides to Clinton appear to have rebuffed parallel requests from U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan that they similarly certify that they'd turned over certain emails and other records in their possession relating to their work at State.Last week, Sullivan ordered the State Department to ask Clinton, former Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills and former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin to personally vouch that they'd turned over all records responsive to a Freedom of Information Act request the conservative group Judicial Watch filed seeking information on Abedin's employment arrangements.
They know where the bodies are buried.
Now for the usual Hillary bullsh*t:
Clinton's formal declaration may not satisfy her critics because while she has said she directed that all potential federal records in her private email account be turned over to her former agency, she can't personally certify that the handover was complete because she left the actual sorting process to her attorneys.
Despite all the formalities, Clinton has certified absolutely nothing. Professor Bill Jacobson:
Let’s take a look as the many potential loopholes and outs Hillary has in the wording:•“While I do not know what information may be “responsive”” — In other words, everything that follows is qualified by Hillary not knowing what she’s supposed to be producing.
•“I have directed” — so if it doesn’t get done, it’s not Hillary’s fault.
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...

More Concealed Handgun Permits, Less Crime? Read John Lott’s Latest.

Benweingarten.com ^ | 2015-08-11 | Benjamin Weingarten 

John R. Lott Jr., author of the groundbreaking More Guns, Less Crime, and president of the Crime Research Prevention Center, published a study last month on the rapid growth in concealed carry permits during the Obama years that revealed some interesting takeaways.
Among them, Lott found that:
Between 2007 and 2014, murder rates have fallen from 5.6 to 4.2 (preliminary estimates) per 100,000. This represents a 25% drop in the murder rate at the same time that the percentage of the adult population with permits soared by 178%. Overall violent crime also fell by 25 percent over that period of time.
The broader trend is illustrated below:
(Image Soure: Lott, John R. and Whitley, John E and Riley, Rebekah C., Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States (July 13, 2015).
(Excerpt) Read more at benweingarten.com ...

Not driving


Can't say this


Can't say


Only in Calfornia


My kid and my president


My record!










What matters?